Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
LASHKARI RAM & ORS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MAST RAM TANTA & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/09/1998
BENCH:
G.T.NANAVATI, S.P.KURDUKAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
NANAVATI. J.
In this appeal, filed by some of the officers of the
Himacahal Pradesh Government, what is called in question are
the remarks made against them by the High Court, while
disposing of Criminal Revision No. 56/82.
Respondent No.1 Mast Ram Tanta was tried by the
Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Theog for certain
offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and the
Forest Act. Respondnt No. 1 pleaded quilty and was
sentenced to pay fine only. The High Courtfinding that the
sentence imposed upon Respondent No. 1 was inadequate, in
exercise of its sub moto powers, issued notice to him
calling him to show cause why the sentence should not be
enhanced. During those proceedings the High Court found
that the whole trial was conducted in an unholy haste and
there was plea bargaining. Therefore, instead of enhancing
the sentence it thought it proper to quash the whole trial
and remanded the case back to the trial court for conducting
the trial afresh. While disposing of the Revision
Application in that manner the High Court made certain
observations against the present appellants.
Having gone through the judgment, we find that the
said observations are part and parcel of the reasoning of
the High Court and they have been made while appreciating
the evidence on record. Those observations are a part of the
reasoning of the High Court. They cannot be expunged because
that will amount to removing the very foundation on which
the High Court judgment is based.
We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.